Tuesday, August 6, 2013

"A Random Survey - Part Two"

At loose ends one recent afternoon, my daily chores, such as they are, completed – my average day’s work includes forty-minutes of exercise, to allay my physical deterioration by at least forty-five minutes, forty-five minutes practicing the piano so I at least won’t play worse than the day before, though I am not always successful in that aspiration, and, however long it takes, writing this blog, a duration guaranteed to be shorter if only I can complete this sentence. 

There.  I made it.  No, wait, I never got to the “predicate.”  Okay, back we go.

“…my daily chores, such as they are, completed, I lay down, as is my habitual TV watching position –  at least currently.  I used to watch TV lying on my back on the floor, my head supported by an inverted “V” formed by the index and middle finger of my left hand, explaining why I have been recently required to sign up for a battery of remediatory chiropraction.  I then flipped through my numerous cable movie channels – ranging from Channel 503 to 579 – to see if there was something on there I wanted to watch.

There wasn’t.  But there almost never is, raising the question “Why we subscribe to all these movie channels?”  Though not raising the answer.

Having no interest in the movies they were playing, I decided to take a look at their accompanying logline descriptives, along with their “star” ratings.  The last time had done this I became perplexed by the fact that the logline descriptives and the “star” ratings – from one star to four – seemed significantly out of sync, arbitrary and generally messed up. 

I checked out the situation again, to discover if the power of my having drawn blogal attention to these anomalies had led toany  ameliorative alterations. 

And here are the results.  (Making me seriously wonder if the cable movie providers even read this blog.)

Channel 504Monte Carlo   “Uproarious comedy.”

One star.

(How could an “uproarious comedy” rate only one star?  Was it the wrong kind of “uproarious”?  Was it that, though admittedly “uproarious”, there were dozens of other comedies that were “uproariouser”?  Is this a a less common definition, in which “uproarious” is a negative? 

Imagine the writer of Monte Carlo reading the logline and thinking they loved it, they click down, and it’s “One star.” 
How do you respond to that?  Should you be heartily encouraged, or disappear into another line of work?  This is really confusing.)

Channel 506Two Weeks Notice­ ­­– “Delightful Romantic Comedy.” 

Two stars.

Help me out here.  Is “delightful” a superior accolade for a comedy than Monte Carlo’s “uproarious”?  It isn’t to me.  Maybe it’s the “romantic” that nudges the rating up a star.  Though, personally, I would lop a star off.

Channel 508The Bone Collector – a “creepy thriller.” 

Two stars.

Channel 511Safe House – a “pulse-pounding ride.” 

Three stars.

How do you determine that “a pulse-pounding ride” is one star worthier than “a creepy thriller”? 

“My pulse pounded one third more often than I was creeped out.” 

Is that actually measurable?

Channel 521Columbiana – “nonstop action thrill ride.” 

One star.

Apparently, this is one of those bad “nonstop action thrill ride” movies.  Perhaps if they had stopped the action once in a while, it might have had a shot at a second star.

Channel 326Down and Derby, about Dads involved in their kid’s miniature car race, starring unknowns. 

One star.

Channel 531The Toy, starring comic geniuses Jackie Gleason and Richard Pryor. 

One star.

Posing the question, “Why splurge on comic geniuses when you can just as easily get one star with nobodies?”

Channel 537Ondine – a “breathtaking drama.”  

No stars.

No stars for “breathtaking”?  What do they want?

In Anaconda (Channel 552), they’re combatting snakes. 

One star. 

In The Breed (Channel 557), they’re combating genetically modified canines.

Two stars. 

And in Alien (Channel 563), they’re combating a highly aggressive extra-terrestrial creature.

Four stars.   

Leading me to wonder if there are more stars depending on what it is you’re combatting.  And also wonder why there are so many movies where they’re combatting weird stuff?

Nearing the end of my movie viewing options, I noticed:

Channel 573Holes.  

Two stars.


Channel 574­Hidalgo. 

Two stars.

Having lost complete faith in the system, it seemed imaginable that both movies received two stars because they both begin with an “H.” 

It could be anything.

Anything, that is,

Except accurate.


Stef said...

I love your blog.

Canda said...

Please tell me a man as literate as you spends part of the day reading.